Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Comprehend]

I guess what I am trying to say (and I think Beckysoup explained it nicely) is that the gospel according to Joseph Smith didn't bring as much clarity as it did by offering us more mystery. Here was an opportunity to clarify Truth (not just the belief that its Truth) but instead we are offered an extra helping of faith.

I understand your opinion, I just disagree. He brought an astounding amount of clarity... the only people who see more mystery are those who choose not to learn what is available.

Anything is a mystery to those who don't take the time to learn a thing but that doesn't mean the answers aren't available.

Speaking of which Comprehend, I am currently researching Joseph Smith's Lectures of Faith. Stay tuned, when I get the time, I will PM you my material.

uh... researching *about* Lectures on Faith? Are you also *reading* them?

 

[cardero]

Comprehend writes: I understand your opinion, I just disagree. He brought an astounding amount of clarity... the only people who see more mystery are those who choose not to learn what is available.

I am impressed with his insight and he does provide plenty of food for thought but rest assured, this expectation is mostly on my part and my current understandings and ignorance.

Comprehend writes: Anything is a mystery to those who don't take the time to learn a thing but that doesn't mean the answers aren't available.

Yes, but you are addressing someone who’s answers do not correspond to Joseph Smith’s inspirations. It seems I have a lot of unraveling to do and faith cannot help me with this.

Comprehend writes: uh... researching *about* Lectures on Faith? Are you also *reading* them?

I wouldn’t consider this type of reading leisurely, so I am considering the information carefully.

 

[Popeyesays]

From a purely theological standpoint, it makes no difference. Unfortunately, we don't live in a purely theological world. When Mormons are denied scholarships, awards, even simple club memberships on the judgements of others, it has an impact.

Moreover, few of our critics stop at merely excluding us as Christians. They use that as a wedge to insert all kinds of baseless crap.

I have no doubt that Mormons have suffered some discrimination and still suffer it from time to time. I do not think any lives have been lost in the last hundred years, though. That is not the case for other religious groups. The vast bulk of Mormon believers is in the north American continent, there in modern times they are very effectively protected.

As a Baha`i I can point out that my fellow believers are at risk of life and freedom in many places around the globe.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Bishka]

I have no doubt that Mormons have suffered some discrimination and still suffer it from time to time. I do not think any lives have been lost in the last hundred years, though.

There have been a few, some of our missionaries have been killed, but not as many as the Baha'i's.

That is not the case for other religious groups. The vast bulk of Mormon believers is in the north American continent, there in modern times they are very effectively protected.
t

Actually according to LDS Church statistics, your statement is false:

Membership (31 December 2005)
Member living in US & Canada: 5,863,105
Members living outside US & Canada: 6,697,764

(The numbers may have changed a bit from what I have in my book, but for the most part, there are more members outside the US and Canada then there is inside)

 

[Bathsheba]

The Old Testament prophet Amos taught that "the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). During the difficult infant days of Christianity Paul taught the same principle: that prophets and apostles would always serve as the foundation of Christ's true church. He declared that prophets and apostles would be needed for the work of the ministry until all come in the unity of the faith in Jesus Christ (see Ephesians 4:11-13).

These scriptures make it clear that wherever the true gospel of Christ is ministered, it will be directed through a prophet of God. The Savior also knew that false prophets would rise up and decieve many, and so gave this piece of counsel concerning true prophets: "ye shall know them by their fruits... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matthew 7:16-18).

Undoubtedly many false prophets have come forth since the time of Christ. We have even seen some in our own day such as David Koresh, and Warren Jeffs, who each have been exposed by the evil fruits of their works.

In harmony with the teachings of Amos, Paul, and Christ himself, true prophets have also come forth in the due time of the Lord, and heeded the divine call to reveal truth and minister the true gospel of Christ. After a long season in which a famine of prophetic leadership prevailed, God chose once again to call a prophet.

In the spring of 1820 God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared in person to a mere boy and commissioned him to a divine work. Joseph Smith was called to be the mouthpiece of God to man, just as all the holy ancient prophets had been. Through this prophet, God restored truths that had been corrupted, priesthood authority that had been lost, and a church organization that had been dormant since the days of the early Apostles.

The fruits that have proceeded from the ministry of Joseph Smith are many and are far from evil. The good fruits produced by this tree include a worldwide church that is active and dilligent in the preaching of salvation through Christ, the establishment of additional scripture that further clarifies the doctrines of the gospel, the providing of relief to the poor and the needy, and the rearing of families with strong moral values just to name a few.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man, but he was a good man who was called of God to be a prophet to the world. And though he was persecuted for his testimony of Christ, he was dilligent and faithful in his call as a true prophet of God.

All honest seekers of truth must at least consider with sincerity the mission and fruits of the prophet Joseph Smith. Either Joseph was indeed a true prophet or he was a deceiptful fraud.

If he was a true prophet then the doctrines and authority that he restored are pure and true.

If he was not a true prophet...
- either the major fruits of his labor must be evil
- or somehow good fruit came from a corrupt tree despite what Christ taught

So where do you stand?

I don’t accept the arguments premise. You quoted Matthew: "ye shall know them by their fruits... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit". I don’t accept everything Jesus said as absolute truth. Frankly, I think it is reasonable to believe that a bad person could occasionally do good things. And a good person can do bad things.

Anything good that came from Smith’s religion is probably overrated by the adherents. The so-called additional scripture is not compelling when one considers it is much more likely that Smith made it all up. The fact that Smith was persecuted is not unique. If Smith was sincere, that also does little to make him uniquely worthy of consideration. IMO you have created a false dichotomy.

The power of self-deception is underrated and in my opinion you have made this all too apparent. One alternative that you haven’t given a fair hearing to is that Smith labored under self-deception and was able to convince others to buy the same delusion – this is a common human dynamic. But hey, I’m not knocking delusion per se; I don’t really think most people can handle reality in its entirety.

You frame things as black or white, pure and true or an evil fraud; I reject the over-simplification of your argument. That’s not to say Smith couldn’t have been a fraud, maybe he was a fraud of the highest order. Maybe he was completely conscious of all the stuff he made up. I tend to think it wasn’t quite that simple, but maybe I too easily give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Polaris]

I don’t accept the arguments premise. You quoted Matthew: "ye shall know them by their fruits... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit". I don’t accept everything Jesus said as absolute truth. Frankly, I think it is reasonable to believe that a bad person could occasionally do good things. And a good person can do bad things.

Fair enough. Though as I stated earlier I think when Christ mentioned "good works" I think he referred to the overall body of work by a self-proclaiming prophet.

Anything good that came from Smith’s religion is probably overrated by the adherents.

Sure some parts are, but its hard to argue that the church he established is not a good and honorable organization.

The so-called additional scripture is not compelling when one considers it is much more likely that Smith made it all up.

OK, that's your opinion.

The fact that Smith was persecuted is not unique. If Smith was sincere, that also does little to make him uniquely worthy of consideration. IMO you have created a false dichotomy.

I'm not sure what your talking about here.

One alternative that you haven’t given a fair hearing to is that Smith labored under self-deception and was able to convince others to buy the same delusion – this is a common human dynamic.

Doppleganger brought this point up and it was discussed some. It may be a common human dynamic in certain smaller cases, but what Joseph was able to pull off through some delusional manipulative skill would be far from common. It just doesn't make sense to me given the number of witnesses, and the preservation of information and testimony that suggests otherwise.

You frame things as black or white, pure and true or an evil fraud; I reject the over-simplification of your argument. That’s not to say Smith couldn’t have been a fraud, maybe he was a fraud of the highest order. Maybe he was completely conscious of all the stuff he made up. I tend to think it wasn’t quite that simple, but maybe I too easily give people the benefit of the doubt.

You may be right, but the fact remains: he was either a true prophet or he wasn't. How would you identify a true prophet if not by the fruits of his overall body of work?

 

[Bathsheba]

Sure some parts are, but it’s hard to argue that the church he established is not a good and honorable organization.

I think it is easy to argue that the church Smith established has not been good and honorable in various instances at various times throughout it's history. But this doesn't mean the church is only bad or good - that would be falling prey to that black or white thinking again. The church has justified dishonorable behavior in the past. You can't see the dishonorable behavior because of your confirmation bias and the false dichotomy on which your rest your faith.

I'm not sure what you’re talking about here.

Yeah, the way I wrote that was confusing. The false dichotomy was in reference to you saying that Smith was evil or good, true or false - I don't think it is that simple.

How would you identify a true prophet if not by the fruits of his overall body of work?

I agree that one has to look at the evidence.

 

[Popeyesays]

There have been a few, some of our missionaries have been killed, but not as many as the Baha'i's.



Actually according to LDS Church statistics, your statement is false:

Membership (31 December 2005)
Member living in US & Canada: 5,863,105
Members living outside US & Canada: 6,697,764

(The numbers may have changed a bit from what I have in my book, but for the most part, there are more members outside the US and Canada then there is inside)

You need to add in Mexico, actually, Becky.

Politically North Americaconsists of the continental United States, Canada, Alaska and Mexico.

I think that will tilt your totals as well.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Polaris]

I think it is easy to argue that the church Smith established has not been good and honorable in various instances at various times throughout it's history. But this doesn't mean the church is only bad or good - that would be falling prey to that black or white thinking again. The church has justified dishonorable behavior in the past. You can't see the dishonorable behavior because of your confirmation bias and the false dichotomy on which your rest your faith.

I'm referring to the overall body of work. Sure you can find certain isolated events/circumstances that were dishonorable -- that's true with any organization.

 

[KingM]

I don't get it. What fruits? Do you mean that lots of people believe in it? There are more Jehovah's Witnesses and that was a church founded at roughly the same time.

Do you mean charity work? Taking a look at lds.org, there is a statement that says that since 1984 the church has donated 750 million dollars. Sounds impressive until you divide it by 23 years and 5-13 million members (depending on the year). In which case you get what? 4 bucks per year per member? Not overly impressive.

Seriously, what fruits?

 

[nutshell]

I don't get it. What fruits? Do you mean that lots of people believe in it? There are more Jehovah's Witnesses and that was a church founded at roughly the same time.

Do you mean charity work? Taking a look at lds.org, there is a statement that says that since 1984 the church has donated 750 million dollars. Sounds impressive until you divide it by 23 years and 5-13 million members (depending on the year). In which case you get what? 4 bucks per year per member? Not overly impressive.

Seriously, what fruits?

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but I believe there are more LDS than JW's.

You are also picking and choosing which humanitarian aid fact to post here.

Anyway, I doubt "fruits" ever was supposed to mean statistics. I think "fruits" just means is the overall impression good or bad?

 

[Sthatting]

I don't get it. What fruits? Do you mean that lots of people believe in it? There are more Jehovah's Witnesses and that was a church founded at roughly the same time.

Do you mean charity work? Taking a look at lds.org, there is a statement that says that since 1984 the church has donated 750 million dollars. Sounds impressive until you divide it by 23 years and 5-13 million members (depending on the year). In which case you get what? 4 bucks per year per member? Not overly impressive.

Seriously, what fruits?

I think it shows that a person doesn't have to have a lot of money in order to make a difference. I think that's important to know too.

 

[Comprehend]

I am impressed with his insight and he does provide plenty of food for thought but rest assured, this expectation is mostly on my part and my current understandings and ignorance.



Yes, but you are addressing someone who’s answers do not correspond to Joseph Smith’s inspirations. It seems I have a lot of unraveling to do and faith cannot help me with this.



I wouldn’t consider this type of reading leisurely, so I am considering the information carefully.

All the above sounds OK to me. I won't argue with it.

 

[Bathsheba]

I think "fruits" just means is the overall impression good or bad?

Not according to the OP. Apparently you can figure out if Smith was a true prophet by his "fruits". Polaris is arguing that what Smith produced (the fruit from his tree) proves he is a true prophet.

If Polaris was intellectually honest and consistent with his reasoning, one would only have to prove that one of Smiths claims was fraudulent and then Polaris would have to conclude that Smith was "evil" and not true prophet.

 

[nutshell]

Not according to the OP.

The OP doesn't define "fruits." I did.

 

[Bathsheba]

The OP doesn't define "fruits."

Wrong, the OP states: "The good fruits produced by this tree include a worldwide church [A Mormon "worldwide church" is quite a stretch; there are some pretty significant countries in which the church doesn't exist] that is active and dilligent in the preaching of salvation through Christ [and the Mormons declare that every other church is an abomination to God], the establishment of additional scripture that further clarifies the doctrines of the gospel [so-called scripture which has been shown to be a hoax], the providing of relief to the poor and the needy [big whoop, that's what you are supposed to do as a Christian, right?], and the rearing of families with strong moral values just to name a few." [Why is it assumed that Mormon moral values are the prefered values. I find some Mormon so-called moral values immoral.]

 

[KingM]

Good points, Bathsheba. And I'll take another stab:

"The good fruits produced by this tree include a worldwide church [Where does it say in the scriptures that the size of a church was an indication of its truthfulness. In any event, it's not worldwide, as it is non-existent in the Middle East, India, or China, which have half the world's population. Not to mention that it's roughly 1% the size of the Catholic Church.] that is active and dilligent in the preaching of salvation through Christ [like a thousand other sects], the establishment of additional scripture that further clarifies the doctrines of the gospel [other churches have extra scripture too], the providing of relief to the poor and the needy [again, not unique at all, and from above it looks like the church does little relief for its size], and the rearing of families with strong moral values [again, like most other conservative churches] just to name a few."

 

[KingM]

In the end, what LDS point to is not evidence, but feelings. Do you have warm, fuzzy feelings when you think about the church and read its scripture or bad feelings? It's not the evidence, but "the spirit" that "testifies."

This seems an extremely poor way to prove the truthfulness claims of something. It is subject to missing/erroneous information, wishful thinking, or the influence of a charismatic other.

 

[Sthatting]

In the end, what LDS point to is not evidence, but feelings. Do you have warm, fuzzy feelings when you think about the church and read its scripture or bad feelings? It's not the evidence, but "the spirit" that "testifies."

This seems an extremely poor way to prove the truthfulness claims of something. It is subject to missing/erroneous information, wishful thinking, or the influence of a charismatic other.

To me, the Holy Spirit testifies through peace. The Holy Spirit is peace.

How does the Holy Spirit testify something to you?

 

[Popeyesays]

I think the thing which weighs most heavily in terms of "fruits" is that the fruits of the Mormon revelation are not the fruits of Joseph Smith, but rather the fruits of Christ.

In my estimation there is no revelation through Joseph Smith at all. He is not the instrument of Revelation direct from God, there is no authoirty in Joseph Smith that is not derived from Jesus and the Christian Revelation.

Fruits are not the same thing as evidence. You can find evidence of the fruits of a Dispensation but the conclusion drawn is not "evidence". One draws conclusions FROM evidence; one does not draw evidence from conclusions.

A Revelation like Christ's is finite and discrete. trhere are other Revelations before and after and each though it builds upon the previous and leads to the Revelations yet to come, each is discrete and not subject to "scientific method".

Regards,
Scott

Evolution is a theory drawn from evidence, for instance. It is a conclusion that is not final because more evidence may come to light.